Editing This Page

Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! We will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its natural occurrence is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts. It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ Sysop-TKTalk2Me! 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. You really shouldn't make any judgements based on what he says.
Two things are quite clear at the least regarding global warming: the Earth has been warming since c.1850 at the very least and the rate of change of temperature is unprecedented; 0.76 degrees in a century and a half has not happened before in at least 800,000 years (using temperature reconstructions from proxy data in the EPICA ice core).

Why is the article locked from editing, by the way?
Surely registered members at the very least should still have edit privileges. I have spotted several errors and omissions and wish to correct them.
--Scientist 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused about the nature of this encyclopedia. Should a wiki-based encyclopedia be able to be edited by it's user community? Is the present system democratic? -- Lw2007 13:20, 14 December 2007 (GMT+1)

As a general rule, yes it is edited by its community, but sometimes articles need to be locked. Philip J. Rayment 07:26, 14 December 2007 (EST)

In general (I'm not specifically talking about this article), two reasons would be repeated vandalism and edit wars. Philip J. Rayment 02:58, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Solar variation and global warming

A recently published study discounts this. The full text of the study can be found in http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448008a.html . For those that lack a subscription to Nature, various journalists commenting on the article: [1][2][3][4] . I hope that this material can be properly integrated into the main article. --Mtur 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

And a link to the article published at the Royal Society [5] --Mtur 14:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

It's also worth pointing out that Pluto is so far out that any increase in warming there from the sun would effectively fry the Earth! This is basic astronomy. Let us not forget that planets are in elliptical orbits - not perfect circles - which take them closer to and then further away from the sun. Pluto's orbit is highly eccentric. Darkmind1970 06:54, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Controversy over the facts

Despite the simple view above (pun intended! ;-) there is substantial controversy over what the facts are. The United Nations climate panel initially agreed with the scientific consensus about longterm temperature variation, i.e., the existence of the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age. A few years later, they decided to drop the facts in favor of Mann's hockey stick graph.

Another way of stating it is that they decided to make an issue about what the facts were. The UN created a controversy over what the facts are. That is what is meant by terms such as "controversial facts". It's not the facts themselves which are controversial, as I'm sure all liberals know, but whether the reported facts are actual facts. Those who pretend not to understand this have no standing in this discussion.

Until the section on Al Gore has better sources, it needs to be deleted

The whole section echoes this article by James M. Taylor. At the bottom it states he's a member of the Heartland institute. It's been consistently proven the Heartland Institute is funded by Exxonmobil 123. I mean, I'm pretty loyal to the guy who signs my checks. --hoboace

Agreed, for a similar reason. There was no "November 23, 2003" issue of Nature magazine, as cited in the Mount Kilimanjaro "example" of Gore "being wrong". There was an issue on the 20th and the next week on the 27th (see here). Neither of these, nor a search of the Nature.com website using Google, shows any trace of this article. Nor would one research paper by one investigator be sufficient to prove Gore's guess (and it was only a poorly made guess) wrong. Citing secondary sources to make scientific claims like this one should be highly discouraged. AngelOfMercy 14:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

References

A number of the later refererences don't use the regular reference format so they show up under the References section. It may be wise to convert these for consistency with the rest of the article. Learn together 17:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

We could try right now as we're both on and probably some of the only ones up. ;-) It shouldn't take long. Learn together 23:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, why is the IPCC discredited in one instance, "Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific", but used as a credible source in another, "Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes"? If the IPCC is not a credible source in one instance, then why is it in another? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Creationist(talk)

I've not studied the particular references you make, but the general principle that if you must either reject or accept everything that someone or some group says is fallacious. There can be good reasons for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data, including some being factual research and the other being opinion, some being based on good research while the other is not, etc. Philip J. Rayment 21:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Your point is well taken. I am not familiar with the research either. I was curious what the good reasons were "for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data", with regards to the information provided by the IPCC? I attempted to check the validity of the source used to discredit Gore's and the URL no longer exists. # ↑ http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article. None of the references used in the section discrediting Gore are valid, since the URL's no longer exist.

Lead sentence suggestion

The article leads with "The global warming warming issue ..." I don't think the second 'warming' adds anything. Of course, I would suggest that saying that Global Warming "is mainly used to justify support for the Kyoto Protocol" does not summarize this complex issue best. I might say "The global warming issue is a political battle over the possible anthropomorphic influence on recent anomalies in the Earth's average temperature". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gantczak(talk)

I agree, suggesting that the justification of support for the Kyoto Protocol is the focal point of the global warming issue is absurd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calebdelworth84(talk)

Ed Poor

It's all a bunch of hot air, Terry. The fact is that since 1850 average surface air temperature, as measured by ground based thermometers at weather stations, has gone up by one degree Fahrenheit (around 0.6 to 0.8 Centigrade).

The scientifically accepted theory is that natural forces account for nearly all of this, and that the effects of human activity are comparatively small.

The Politics of global warming article is about the conflict between liberals and conservatives over (1) what the facts are and (2) what the science says theory-wise. Liberals pretend that there is a "scientific consensus" in favor of their view. Conservatives, largely drowned out in the media, remind us that science does not operate by consensus and that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with AGW.

In fact, the most prominent and highly credentialed scientists nearly ALL disagree with AGW. It is only a few liberal activists (who either are lobbying for Kyoto Protocol or are partisan supporters of Democratic Party candidates, etc.) in the scientific community who are the odd men out.

There has been immense scientific misconduct and fraud on this issue, which is not surprising since over 1 billion dollars a year in US federal funding is at stake: if there's a problem, the funds will continue; if it's all a "bunch of hot air", Congress will not want to spend a lot of money to study a non-issue.

There is both a fact and a theory here. Liberals try to confuse us by blurring the distinction. It will take a lot of editorial work to straighten it out. It's not cut and dried, like DDT and Malaria. --Ed PoorTalk 23:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Ed, perhaps you need to remove your comments above to the link I supplied? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 20:58, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Bug Discovered In NASA Temperature Data

In 2007, Steve McIntyre discovered a bug in NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature datase, thus forcing NASA to re-rank the hottest temperature record in US. As a result, 1998 is no longer the hottest year in US history, 1934 is.[7][8][9][10]Jaques 09:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Those numbers are particular to the US, where the global temperature anomaly is not as pronounced. Even if these bloggers are right, it does not contraindicate the much larger pool of data which shows a significant increase in global mean temperature over the past fifty years. But that's what the liberal conspirators want us to think, isn't it? Gantczak 13:39, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

See http://climateaudit.org. NASA has been claiming for years 1998 was the hottest year on record for the planet. Climate Audit forced them to admit their mistake in calculations. 1934 was the hottest known year, followed by 1998 and 1927. In fact 5 of the hottest recorded years came before World War II. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

This is not the first time an outsider has found errors in government statistics about global warming. We should write an article about Steve McIntyre and his scientific watchdog work.

It's also a sad commentary on the state of climate science that simple mistakes like this take so long to correct. --Ed PoorTalk 10:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

The difference in temperature between 1934 and 1998 using the corrected data was 0.02 degrees Celsius.
Global mean temperatures remained almost exactly the same, showing the same 0.76 degrees C (+/- 0.2 degrees C) warming since c.1850 as they did before.
--Scientist 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory|[11]

Gosh, I wish I could be there as some of you alarmists read this.....

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

Lord Monckton released the names of some of the papers that the study claims reject the consensus outright. Out of seven or so studies that Monckton mentioned, only two actually reject the consensus, and that's if you give the anti-AGW crowd the benefit of the doubt. Peiser tried the same trick before, and in the end, he only found one or two (out of the thirty-odd that he claimed) that rejected AGW outright. The Oreskes study was flawed, but this one's even worse.--Frey 12:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Ed...

...100% about this article. It's not so hard, actually. I have an very good book by conservative author Wario C. O. Jones, and it will be my basis for the whole new article. I can't wait to start. --Phyllisrules 10:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT) Oh yeah!

Needed Entry

In order to assure that Conservapedia remains a non-biased and objective source of information, I think there needs to be something mentioned somewhere about Dr. John H. Marburger. Dr. Marburger is the president's main science advisor, who supports global warming. It also needs to be noted that President Bush supports certain initiatives to combat global warming. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bag221(talk)

No one is disputing naturally occurring warming, Bag221. Of course there is evidence of that! But the majority doesn't believe what that nut-job, wing-nut Gore is blabbing about either. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 13:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the correct term, as Blogs 4 Brownback has taught us, is 'moonbat'. 'Wingnuts' are what we liberals sometimes (if we are resorting to liberal mockery) call opponents on the right. :)--SayaSan

LOL...I must thank you for just making my morning! Sorry you had to get uncivil and urinate on my gesture of hospitality, my wishing you might contribute and become a productive editor, like you never managed before. My bad. Say goodnight, Gracie. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 14:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I am not sying that I agree or disagree with Dr. Marburger. I think that there needs to be something put in the article about his views on the subject. This is important due to the fact that Dr. Marburger has a great amount of influence on the president, and therefore a great amount of influence on US policy. Bag221

Yes, Bag221, I can see your point! Sorry, but I was distracted by someone being rude to my hospitality....and that just angers me so! I will be happy to unlock the article for you to incorporate your suggestions, if you would like. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 14:18, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

In science, it hardly matters what percentage of researchers think or believe or guess something is true. It only matters how the evidence compares to the theory. If the evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is discarded. It's as simple as that. --Ed PoorTalk 22:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Global warming predicted by scripture

I'm kinda new at this *net*pedia stuff, so I don't know where to post or if to post some things.
But I did figure out how to comment about 'Global warming'....as the page points out, other planets are experiencing warming as well. The common denominator is THE SUN. The Bible predicted that this would occur, and during this particular time. Read Isaiah 30:26 as well as 2Peter 3:10-12, Malachi 4:1. Michael, --Witnessnbr1 13:57, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Uranus is in fact cooling, bucking the trend. If it were down to the Sun then we would expect it to be a Solar System wide event.

We would also expect planets closer to the Sun to warm more, in accordance with the inverse square law as it applies to intensity of E-M radiation. However, this is not thought to be the case. --Scientist 14:07, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Atmospherics plays the biggest part, in all of that. I don't think anyone of sound logic can deny their is general warming for Earth. My only sticking point, as it is for thousands in the scientific community, is people running around blaming engines or this or that. Man can be very egocentric in wanting to always take the blame or credit for everything....that is pretty simplistic. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 14:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

On the other hand, there are very few other things which we can blame for the warming. Solar activity, on average, has gone down in the past 30 or so years which, even accounting for time lag, should result in decreasing temperatures, something which hasn't been seen. Cosmic rays similarly have been on the decrease, and the hypothesis had some major flaws in the first place.

Coupled with these two things, we are somewhere in the middle of the current climate cycle, and shouldn't be able to discern any significant trend in global temperatures. We are able to, however, and we can also see (by comparing instrumental records with historical proxy data) that the current rate of change of temperature is unprecedented.

The warming was not produced by humanity alone; solar activity probably contributed up to 0.18-0.2 degrees C warming prior to 1940. However, since then, it is extremely unlikely that natural forcings have had any significant warming effect (indeed, most research I've seen suggests a net cooling from natural forcings over the twentieth century).

I'm of the opinion that nuclear power in combination with renewables and feasible substitutes for the products of crude oil should be able to see us through with little, if any, effect on our quality of life, not to mention also remove our current dependence on oil (which is primarily found in the politically unstable Middle-East, with smaller amounts also in Russia and even less in the USA) which will not, after all, last forever. --Scientist 14:42, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

As we all know, on a cloudy day, air near the surface (below the clouds) tends to be cooler than usual. --Ed PoorTalk 15:15, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

That last part is true, and clouds do indeed have a cooling effect during the day (due to their reflection of IR radiation, much like the Arctic ice sheet and the aerosols and sulphates responsible for the 1940-1970 Northern Hemispheric cooling period). They also serve to increase temperatures during the night by reflecting IR from the Earth back at the ground.

The net effect from cloud cover is one of cooling.

It is believed that cosmic rays have little, if any, effect on cloud formation (and by extension cloud cover). In simple terms, the hypothesis essentially stated that the ionising effect of cosmic rays would cause a larger number of particles to which water vapour would 'stick' (these particles were called cloud condensation nuclei; however, whilst they could theoretically help clouds to form, the accepted explanation is effectively saturation of the atmosphere at the point at which clouds form), thus increasing cloud formation.

However, no effect such as this has been reliably seen to exist. The hypothesis didn't match up with reality very well.

I don't know how long TK intends to unlock the article for at whatever point; until he does it I'll write an outline of the additions so that I can then quickly make the edit. --Scientist 15:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Don't say it is believed when discussing science. Only politicians and theologians deal in beliefs. Say rather that this or that scientist has published a hypothesis or a theory. --Ed PoorTalk 16:13, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh great- another idiot misquoting the bible. Those quotes provide no evidence of the current time, nor do they talk about Global Warming as we are supposedly experiencing it.

Isaiah 30:23 provides a chronological reference saying "in that day shall thy cattle feed in large pasture", but we hold our cattle in very small feeding pens these days.

Your quotation of 2Peter 3:10-12 reads "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise...heavens being on fire", but the alleged "global warming" is hardly a rapid process or so dramatic. And where's the great noise?

The same goes for Malachi 4:1's "that shall burn as an oven". Or would you like to claim that we're in the "pre-heat" stage? AngelOfMercy 15:14, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Section Needed on the Saturation Problem

In my own investigation of the global warming issue, the single most disturbing oversight in the analysis of global warming alarmists is the saturation problem. To oversimplify a bit, the problem is this: (1) the greenhouse effect is caused by the absorbtion of photons emitted by the Earth's blackbody radiation, delaying the release of that energy into space; (2) there is, therefore, a maximum greenhouse effect, defined by the fact that it is physically impossible to absorb more than 100% of the photons; (3) nevertheless, climate change models generally assume that the contribution to warming by greenhouse gases is logarithmic--that is, for any given doubling of CO2 (for example), there will be a constant increase in temperature. In short, the contribution to warming from greenhouse gases should probably be characterized by a logistical curve; a logarithmic curve will systematically over-estimate the contribution to the greenhouse effect of future increases in greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot fathom, I've found almost no real scholarship on the matter. The difference between the logistical curve and the logarithmic curve will be very small when the absorbtion fraction is close to zero, and will be much greater when it's close to 1. As near as I've been able to work out, the fraction of photons in CO2's absorbtion spectrum that are absorbed is about .85, but I don't know whether that part of the curve is more like 0 or 1 (though I suspect it's a lot more like 1).

Incidentally, the chief oversimplification I'm making is treating greenhouse effect as linear with the number of photons absorbed. In fact, the function is frequency dependent, and not necessarily in a very understandible way. Because the energy of a photon is related to its frequency, and because absorbed photons are re-emitted as photons of other frequencies, you'd almost have to emperically measure the emission spectrum from excited atmospheric CO2 over time, frequency by frequency throughout its absorbtion spectrum, to build up a model that accurately reflects how much energy is actually retained over time by CO2 when it absorbs a photon. Again, I've found no scholarship addressing the frequency dependence of CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. This appears to be a gaping hole in the state of climatology. User:QBeam Oct. 19, 2007 5:11 (EDT)

I'm confused what you are trying to say, let me see if I understand it.

First of all, it's weird to talk about absorbing photons in this case, because that implies some sort of step mechanism. In fact, absorbed radiation causes resonance vibrations in the bonds of molecules (the oxygen-carbon double bond, in the case of carbon dioxide). This doesn't really change what you are saing, but I thought it should be said before we go further.

So, adding that correction to your argument, I agree with your point (1) above, with the caveat that it does not "delay" the heat radiated to the atmosphere, but partially blocks it. Statement (2) is kind of correct, there is a theoretical maximum to the percentage (not necessarily the amount) of radiation absorbed, however there are a lot of other interesting effects that come into play. For example, changing the surface temperature of the earth changes its blackbody radiation emission spectrum. There are also interesting effects like the phase of water (Venus only has a runaway greenhouse effect because it doesn't have enough water!). You've completely lost me on point (3) however. Whatever dependence temperature has on CO2, it's not based on a logarithm just because; it comes from an energy balance. Most likely whatever you are reading has simplified it in order to make it easy to talk about the affect of increasing CO2. I'm not sure where the logistic function comes in at all.

I'm also completely lost on your last couple paragraphs. Are you trying to say that we do not understand how CO2 absorbs radiation? Because we understand it really well (I've done it in intro-level college chem lab). All this talk of photons makes me think that you are confusing global warming with a luminescent effect. Also, are you trying to say that climate change models don't take into account the fact that CO2 only absorbs in certain waveleghts? That's the only way global warming works! If we assumed that CO2 absorbs *all* radiation, then it would absorb incoming radiation as well, which leads to global cooling, not global warming. In fact, greenhouse gases pass the high frequency radiation from the sun and absorb the low frequency radiation from the earth -- if you haven't found any scholarship addressing this issue, I have a text book to recommend!

I'd like to stress that I'm not trying to be argumentive, I'm trying to understand what you are saying. HelpJazz 22:55, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

To answer your last point first, I'd say your comments show good faith, and a helpful and entirely appropriate attempt to get to the core of the (potential) dispute.

On one level, we may just be talking past each other. I say "delay" because excited molecules will eventually relax, and new photons (in a different spectrum) are emitted. Your comments suggest that you mistakenly believe that all of the energy of a black body photon is permanently returned to the Earth as thermal energy just because it's absorbed by an atmospheric molecule. But the molecules that are excited this way have much more of a tendency to shed the energy through re-radiation than mere black-body radiation. These molecules shed energy through a couple of different mechanisms, including new photon emission directly radiated into space, as if the energy was never absorbed in the first place. Other mechanisms are less direct, and therefore take longer; still others really do end up dumping the energy back into the Earth as thermal energy. Thus, to fully describe the effect of the absorbtion of photons at a given quantum of energy, you need a graph over time that shows the expectation value of the fraction of that energy that ends up being radiated into space anyway. It may be that a physical chemist's training is better suited to the task of calculating that curve from first principles, but, from my perspective as a physicist, I'd say that the curve needs to be measured empirically. Worse, it needs to be calculated for each quantum of energy throughout the absorbtion spectrum, because the tendency of a molecule to want to relax through photon emission is a function of its quantum mechanical properties (and because the re-emitted photons are in a different spectrum, and, therefore, not likely to be absorbed by primary greenhouse molecules). The shapes of these curves are the major unknown I'm pointing to. User:QBeam

I think you are right, we are just talking past each other. It seems that physicists and chemical engineers go about explaining things in different ways (for example the photon/wave difference)!

As for the time vs. emission graph, I'm not sure it's necessary. The number of particles is large enough and close enough to uniform distribution that the effect can be modeled on the aggregate level. I don't think you need or want me to get into the specific calculations, but the radiation balance on the earth can be modeled the same way you would model any other system. It follows the same principle as figuring out the steady state temperature of a roof in full sunlight in the wintertime. HelpJazz 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Now, regarding my third point, the logistical curve, let me try to reformulate. There are a certain, relatively fixed number of ergs/year emitted by the Earth in CO2's absorbtion spectrum. (Your point about the spectum being T dependent is correct, but of small effect, since T==300K and delta-T<~3.) The maximum greenhouse effect would have every one of those ergs absorbed (and then a certain fraction of them would be re-emitted anyway in other spectra, and the rest "trapped"). Call that fraction, as a function of the amount of CO2, x(C). For any incremental increase in CO2, delta-C, the number of ergs retained is proportional to (1-x(C)). Logistical curves behave this way--logarithms do not. In short, the horizontal asymptote of a logarithm is infinity, but the horizontal asymptote (and upper bound) on the greenhouse effect is finite. User:QBeam

Ah ok I get what you mean by the logistical curve now. I'm not sure that I can say definitively that this isn't what scientists are doing, though. You normally hear the "doubling CO2 will cause X" mantra by scientists when it's meant for the public. They never say that every doubling will increase the temperature by a certain amount, only that a doubling from current levels. I might be mistaken about this (I don't exactly spend a ton of time in the scientific literature), but I'm fairly confident that the scientists are doing their calculations from first principals (or second principles, since, as you said, the quantum mechanics aren't fully known), not from exrapolation. HelpJazz 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

One thing we do know is that the models aren't built from first principles. They are mathematical models, that attempt to predict future climate change by fitting data to mathematical functions and extrapolating.

I can't say I know definitively that they're using logarithms, because I've never seen them publish their models. I can say the evidence suggests otherwise. Firstly, I'd think it odd if every model-builder is using a logistical curve, but they uniformly say they're using a logarithm. Surely someone would actually use the right word? Secondly, logarithms are one of the four basic curves that are normally used to build mathematical models; logistical curves aren't on that list. Finally, while both curves would tend to fit the data pretty well for lower levels of greenhouse effect, they would diverge at higher levels. In fact, the models have over-predicted recent warming, and had to be tweaked downwards--that is, they've behaved exactly as you would predict if they'd mistakenly chosen a log function. User:QBeam 2:25pm Nov. 2, 2007 (EDT)

First of all, how can you say "the models aren't built on first principles" if you've "never seen [any published] models?" (I presume you are talking about predictive models; descriptive models are not based on fitting the data). Like I said before, I don't know that they aren't using a logistical function, I just know (with my measily 3+ years experience in a major which has a very small focus on modeling techniques) that no scientist worth their salt would use an entirely wrong function, just because. If you can point me to any evidence of this, I'd love to read it.

At any rate, how do you know they are using the wrong function at all? If scientists who study these sorts of things for a living all use a logarithm, how do you know they are wrong? HelpJazz 20:17, 4 November 2007 (EST)

The problem is, you are assuming good faith. Unfortunately on the Internet that is at the top of the charts for never happening. QBeam was stringing together buzz words and silly science in the hope they would lend creditability to his/her post, a fact you just proved, HelpJazz. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 01:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

If you believe you can identify an error in my (or anyone's) reasoning, then you should point that out. Vacuous cheer-leading like this only serves to discredit whatever ideology it is you think you're representing. Simply labeling something a "buzzword," even if it were accurate, is not a substantive response. User:QBeam

Article is Thin

Given the huge scope and significance of this article, I think the posted article is rather thin in covering only a few issues. I am gratified that you note solar warming throughout the solar system.

PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ?

This article and its controversial nature prompts an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?

Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.

I say this because -- like in this case -- there could be DOZENS of subtopics that are IMPORTANT which I think could be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.

In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....

Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.

Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.

Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?

Jon Moseley

URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN

I read the referenced article on Uranus cooling, and I think that -- while it is interesting and should be mentioned -- the data does NOT confirm that Uranus is in fact cooling. The C. article should say that it MAY be cooling. However, the measurements at issue where taken from different parts of the planet. The higher (earlier) temperature measurement was taken from the DUSK side of the planet. That is the side that had been in sunlight all day long. The lower (later) temperature reading was taken from the DAWN side of the planet. That is, the side of the planet that had been in darkness all night long. Therefore, it is unknown if these measurements actually represent a cooling planet Uranus or simply the effects of day versus night. I think fairness and integrity calls for mentioning the observation. But I DO NOT THINK THE OBSERVATION SHOULD BE STATED AS CONCLUSIVE, when it is uncertain and subject to further observation. Jon Moseley

You need to sign articles with four ~ instead of as you are. There is a place in "My Preferences" for this as well. Time/Date stamping is as important as your name. Thanks. --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 15:10, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

"Politician Al Gore"

I don't think it is proper to call Al Gore a "politician". He was at one point, but at that time he was also was also called "the Vice President of the United States of America". Intentionally calling him VPOTUS lends credibility, while using "politician" lends lack there-of. Either way, today he campaigns (whether or not you agree with him) for a super-national cause. So using a current title suggests that the neutral "activist" would be proper.

Request

It is not just liberals. Pat Robertson is on the boat, too! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Creationist(talk)

Not to mention the reinsurance industry. Both Munich Re and Swiss Re - both huge businesses that insure insurance companies - have published numerous reports on the status of global warming, or rather global climate change as it should be referred to. If they're worried about this, I think that we should be too. Darkmind1970 10:44, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Millions of Years

I am a firm believer in the Bible time line, yet this article refers to the earth being millions of years old.

However, the article states, "According to temperature reconstruction made within an Old Earth paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see climate cycles)."

This view is not consistent with the Bible time line. I thought the point of conservapedia was to present a Christian view of the world. Can the sentence quoted above please be removed because of it's discrepancies with the Bible? According to the Bible, the earth is no where near a million years old. The sentence quoted above would also give credence to notion that there have been ice ages, when in fact the Bible never mentioned one.

Are you in the habit of not capitalizing Bible? Hope you don't mind my asking.--Aschlafly 19:06, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Are you in the habit of providing irrelevant comments? If it is your mission to correct everyone's grammar on this site, you have a long quest ahead of you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Creationist(talk)

I hope that you understand that there is difference between not capitalizing Bible and a common grammar error. This site is also frequently vandalized by atheists, it's normal that Mr.Schlafly is wary. Don't take it personally. Another point: please sign your posts with four 'tilde' ('~') characters, like this: Leopeo 12:27, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I now realize my mistake in grammar and it has been corrected. In the normal course of my day, I usually do not type Bible and that is the root of my mistake. Creationist 13:49, 13 December 2007 (EST)Creationist

I noticed that line there recently and wanted to change it, but couldn't quickly come up with an alternative. I don't think simply deleting the line is appropriate, because it is validly pointing out that the evidence (according to the secular view) is not consistent with the claims. Philip J. Rayment 21:00, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I agree and thanks with the explanation. The other point of view will help provide a neutral standpoint. I believe that most Christians, including myself, would not agree with that statement.

==Source of the gasses
The article needs to mention that carbion dioxide does not come from industry. There was a movie that showed it was from oceans.
I tried to add this but, the edit button is broken for this artical.

Section about global warming's unfalsifiability

I'd like to add a section about how global warming advocates see everything as proof that global warming is happening - e.g. glaciers melting, glaciers growing, more frequent and stronger hurricanes, less frequent and weaker hurricanes, unusually warm winters, bitterly cold winters, etc. This is easily documented from news articles over the past few years. If everything proves global warming and nothing disproves it, then it is unfalsifiable and thus is an invalid scientific theory. Your thoughts? Jinxmchue 12:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

I like the idea of a section pointing out the fact that everything these days seems to be related to global warming, but I think it's going too far to say that because various different people use different (seemingly) contradictory examples, that they all believe all of these examples, especially if many of them are from non-experts. Also, if GW were really happening, then you wouldn't be able to "disprove it", but that doesn't make it non-falsifiable. I think there's a subtle but important distinction there.

I think you are on the right track, and a section about this would be interesting and enlightening, but you need to be extremely careful about your wording and what sources you use. HelpJazz 16:20, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Order of Article Items

I would humbly suggest that an Admin switch #1 with #2 - that is, put # 2 "The Modern Warm Period" first, then the #Controversy second. I think it would better convey the details about "global warming" before the controversy is discussed.

Can we add something about how the media has flip-flopped between catastrophic global warming and cooling over the past 100 years? Or should that go on the Global Warming Controversy page? Donaldson 17:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Science and opinion

Position statements are not science. Saying that "X believes something" is unrelated to the truth of falsehood of that thing. Many individuals and organizations have made statements about global warming, and it has become one of the most discussed political controversies of modern times.

Problem With Top Image

The top image is inaccurate. No official predictions were made about global warming until 1992. Any predictions in 1980 would have been the work of a lone climatologist, and not the work of the scientific consensus. TheNobleSith3 00:05, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The proof is in the fact that the IPCC (which is the only organization that had ever produced long range climate forecasts) was not created until 1988, as per their website http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htmTheNobleSith3 00:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Who determines when a "prediction" is "official"? Or better yet, when. Just because a prediction happened to be wrong doesn't make it not official. Its evident that environmentalists are backpedaling. WilliamH 01:57, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I'd assume it would be the organizations in charge of such efforts who determine when a prediction is official. IndianaJ 02:01, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Exactly. There was no organization for predicting the climate until the IPCC (there are now several). Thus, any predictions made prior to that would have been the work of an independent forecaster, and would not have reflected the views of the overall scientific community. Also, even if there had been someone creating such forecasts at that time, that graph is inaccurate in the sense that the "predicted" line is linear, whereas the predicted increase in temperature is, and always has been, exponential. Thirdly, the graph itself is out of date. It only goes up to 1996. TheNobleSith3 12:32, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome to find a "true" graph... if you can. WilliamH 00:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

None of those graphs represent global warming accurately. You're welcome to find a better one, just remember that it must be accurate and reflect reality, not what environmentalists pretend it to be. WilliamH 01:05, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

IPCC

You removed the IPCC part stating they arent a scientific group but CP's own page states they are
AdenJ 08:01, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Communism?

What does the fall of communist nations have to do with global warming?

Sources

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... it is a SCAM.

Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental extremism type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

Now their ridiculously manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

And just gets better from there. Also Global Warming Hoax refutes many warming myths. The Heartland's common sense environmental page has a list of references on this topic. Everwill 07:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Barr vs Obama/McCain

Should it in the politics section mention the fact that: Barack Obama and John McCain both subscribe to the theory that Global Warming exists, is caused by human activity, and that human activity must be curtailed to prevent Global Warming; and that Bob Barr is the only candidate to disagree with humans-are-all-bad theory of Global Warming, and to disagree with proposals to legislate limitations on economic activity for the appeasement of anti-Global Warming activists?

Not unless we clarify what "exists" means; and how much is caused by human activity.

Temperature is up, around the globe, since 1850. But how much of this is a return to average from abnormally low temperatures? (See Little Ice Age.) And how much does human activity affect global air temperatures, compared to solar variation and cosmic rays?

If you can nail down the candidates' exact positions, by all means add them. --Ed PoorTalk 19:04, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

For solar variation and cosmic rays, there was a study on that published here. News articles on the article [12][13][14] --Rutm 19:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

"a new analysis of data on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest?" - Try not to supply one-sided sources if you want anyone to pay attention to you. --Ed PoorTalk 19:33, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

In all fairness, any source that is going to try to prove a point will be one sided. The links for cosmic rays and the solar influence are also one sided. The important thing to do would be to show all the links and all the data and let people draw conclusions from that rather than just having a site that supports one side of the controversy and represses the other. --Rutm 20:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT

Obama's carbon cap a "far-reaching, giant tax"?

Jpatt, please try not to completely break sentences by re-inserting your edits. Also, I need a reliable source that says that Obama's suggested carbon cap is a tax. A source that calls said tax far-reaching and giant would be even better. I have looked, and the closest thing I could find when I made my edits was that the carbon cap would accomplish the same a tax would, but that most definitely doesn't mean that it is a tax. --DirkB 17:58, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

I didn't reinsert the entire edits, just the far reaching tax. Since you took it out already, I am not going to source. As for the 'far-reaching and giant tax', what do you call ( "an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions)? So for the sarcasm, but I don't call it a stimulus package. Economy wide is far reaching and giant. -- jp 18:06, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

You equate a price set by market forces with a tax. I don't know what you would call that, but I would call it "wrong". At best, it's inaccurate and potentially misleading to simply state that he wants to introduce a tax. --DirkB 18:20, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

First, market forces aren't setting a price, but the Obama government, for an item not charged today. Second, who will pay for the measure? Let's see, loss of many jobs, cost of living increases, $10.00 a gallon gas. If I am not mistaken, the American people will pay the increased costs because "we can't have our thermostats at 72 degrees", unless we pay up. Increase in costs is called a tax. Wrong? doubt it. Misleading? Obama's plan is more misleading than my explanation. A Cap is not a Tax, that is debatable,-- jp 20:18, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Idoltry

I just wanted to say, finally, I found a bunch of people who realized how stupid the idea of man made global warming is, and actually look at the facts. Thank you.

Scientists

We need to get actual scientists to write this article. It's too complex for us laymen. Can we get in touch with MIT Professor Richard Lindzen or retired atmospheric physicist Fred Singer? --Ed PoorTalk 09:48, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I am a scientist who worked with the British Antarctic Survey until last year, but I accept that claims of authority on here can be dubious. MikeR 10:51, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Maybe we could get some people not noted for their incredible partisanship on one side or the other, rather than two people who are famous for taking a side on the matter?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 23:49, 18 December 2008 (EST)